While
the battle for what's right and wrong roars on concerning climate
change as a whole, it seems that many small observations are left to
collect dust while politicians and activists concentrate on their own
immediate problems. It can seem overwhelming at times when
science-fact is pushed into a corner because it doesn't help support
a growingly concerned (or unconcerned) community. Nevertheless, these
data and observations are important in the long term to help climate
scientists and geologists understand how the Earth changes over
millennia and how those changes are affecting the current
climate.

Some great finds have made their way
into DailyTech's news
reel already this year. In January, the National Center for
Atmospheric Research and the University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research published findings that suggested tiny
geological formations could be responsible for regulating
the entire North American region. In February, researchers at the
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute released data that suggested
Greenland's rapid glacial retreat is being at least marginally
affected by warm
subtropical waters making their way along currents all the
way into the country's fjords. These findings suggest that at least
one part of the northern hemisphere's climate is controlled more than
partially by ocean systems.

This week, University of
California, Santa Barbara geologist Lorraine Lisiecki has presented
information linking
long-term climate cycles more closely with Earth's ~100,000 year
orbital cycle. And not only does the information suggest quite
clearly that ice ages are an effect of these cycles, it shows that
how adversely the orbit changes inversely affects the climate change.
The idea that the planet's orbit is a large or ultimate factor in the
rise and fall of ice ages is not new, however, the study shows a very
strong connection between hard data and theory.

"The
clear correlation between the timing of the change in orbit and the
change in the Earth's climate is strong evidence of a link between
the two. It is unlikely that these events would not be related to one
another," explains Lisiecki.

The data correlates the
climate change to two different aspects of the Earth's orbit around
the sun as well as its own rotational oscillations. The first is the
Earth's orbital eccentricity, or how elliptical/circular the orbit
is. The second is its inclination, or the angle of its path compared
to the solar orbital mean. The planet's rotational precession, or how
the planet wobbles around its own rotational axis, is the third
contributing factor in Lisiecki's study.

While this evidence
strongly suggest patterns of climate due to local astronomy, Lisiecky
does not solely attribute the cyclical changes to her findings. She
stresses that these kinds of total climate changes are most likely a
complicated interplay between the astronomical system and the Earth's
own weather and more immediate systems. Further, the inverse
relationship between the strength of climate change and the change in
orbital pattern suggest that the overall system simply isn't that
easy to decipher.

Lisiecki used climate data for the last 1.2
million years collected from 57 separate ocean sediment cores in her
study. With this data she discovered the correlation between orbit
and climate. Her full findings have been published in this week's
edition of Nature
Geoscience.

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No it hasn't. It's been ice cold and boiling hot. It's had regular cycles of ice ages. The ocean has been both hundreds of feet higher and lower. Countless deserts and swamps have formed, reformed, migrated, and vanished.

It's had CO2 levels 20 times higher than we have today, and levels even lower. It was once without any free oxygen of any kind...in fact the generation of oxygen by living creatures killed off most of the then-life on the planet, forcing what survived to adapt.

Our climate has never been "stable", in any way, shape, or form.

" The organisms of the earth shaped the climate to what it is today,"

You're forgetting mankind is one of those organisms. And we're not "using up all the resources". Resources such as metals, water, timber, etc can never be exhausted. Even petroleum can be synthesized directly from nothing but water and CO2. And for anyone naive enough to think "half the planet" is covered in concrete, I suggest you take a cross-country plane trip and actually look out the window once in a while. Even if you add in asphalt, less than 0.01% of the earth's surface is so covered.

These cycles have been using quite some time, but still within the extreme, quite different from before the dawn of life. As you say, there was no/little oxygen. The dawn of life eventually changed that. As for now, it seems that more oxygen in the atmosphere allows life to evolve more. I cannot understand how doing the exact opposite, as humans are currently doing, is going to help to evolve life. You say the CO2 levels were 20 times higher, which is true. This is however a) before the propagation of organisms with efficient photo-synthesis or b) due to volcano activity, solar variation etc. The cycle of ice ages is of course affected by the climate which was drastically changed by the organisms with photo-synthesis. The weather system, affecting the geological cycle, has also been affected. The fact that our climate has its cycles but other than that only slowly changes over time, makes it quite stable (maybe not by definition, but you get my point).

Of course "using" resources is the wrong term. They aren't going anywhere. However, by the time another "intelligent" species where to evolve there would a) no time for the resources (oil, coal, etc) to have done the cycle and once again be "easy accessible" b) the sun to hot and no semi-intelligent species could live there.

Of course half of the face of the face of the planet is not covered in concrete or asphalt, by all means. But I have yet to see a place not affected by the rise of the modern civilization.

quote: Of course half of the face of the face of the planet is not covered in concrete or asphalt, by all means. But I have yet to see a place not affected by the rise of the modern civilization.

Why is it then when you look at a satellite map of the earth you see mostly green where the land masses are instead of black asphalt or white concrete? I think you are confusing 50% with something more like 0.001% as being covered with concrete and asphalt. Come live where I do and you will see the ratio of concrete and asphalt to grass is about 10,000 grass to 1 concrete/asphalt, and I live in a small town, not out in a complete nowhere.

It is people who look out their window and see a parking lot and assume that the world is covered in man made materials who are the same ones freaking out about a fraction of a degree warming that is probably more caused by natural forces than human forces and yet want humans to disappear from the planet so it will "survive". Unless another planet smashes into earth or the sun explodes, the planet will survive, humans may not but the planet will. Mankind should be focused more on how to adapt and flow with the changes in the planet than trying to make it stop changing because we don't want to lose our happy place in climate history we have become acclimated to.

@ JediJeb: I absolutely agree with you. Worst case scenario, humans will end up killing themselves . The planet will eventually rebuild itself. This time however, intelligent life is not guaranteed.

"The point you miss is that, for those early organisms, oxygen was a deadly poison. They killed themselves with their own pollution."Interesting. However, it seems like oxygen was needed speed the evolution up a notch.

"CO2 drives plant growth, period. In fact, modern commercial greenhouses artificially boost CO2 levels to about 1,200 ppm (over 3X current levels) to help plants grow better."The plants are of course made that way (evolutionary) because of the CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Let the plants breed 100% oxygen and in 100 billion years, lets see who have the plants which grows best.

A little absurd, yes, my point being it seems like oxygen is way more valuable resource than CO2 for the organisms of the planet earth, maybe all life in general. Maybe it is different other places, but it may be that chemical properties of oxygen is just better for sustaining and evolving life than CO2.

"Had mankind not come along and reversed the process, eventually all life on the planet would have killed itself off, by consuming all the free CO2." I have to call bullshit on this one. Volcanic activity has always let the CO2 out in the atmosphere again, sooner or later.If not the life on the planet would have killed itself a long time ago. The carbon cycle is not dependent on life.

"If you think that's a bad thing, I suggest you try living in the wilderness alone for a few years. Without any clothes, tools, or fancy high-tech camping gear.

Our ability to change the environment for our benefit is what we should be most proud of. Ignorant scientific illiterates think its something to be ashamed of. "I do not believe my skills to survive in the wilderness has anything to do with this discussion. Humans have had the ability to change our environment for a long time, and it's the ability which eventually made us (a little bit) different from other animals. It is the reason why we rule the earth. However, this time it seems like we have bit the lion in the ass. As this discussion proofs, our ability to understand mans impact and affect on the climate and the global environment is quite limited or at least very discussable due to all the variables.

"Let the plants breed 100% oxygen and in 100 billion years, lets see who have the plants which grows best."

Err, we're talking about plant life today, Sparky. The plants we depend on for all life on earth require CO2...and they would thrive if CO2 levels were much higher than are today.

"it seems like oxygen is way more valuable resource than CO2 for the organisms of the planet earth, maybe all life in general."

"Way more"? If you understood biology, you would realize the opposite. CO2 is far more essential than oxygen, even ignoring life such as anaerobes. And even among organisms that require oxygen, free O2 is a dangerous poison, that causes severe organ damage.

"How long do you think we humans can live the way we do today?"

Forever. In fact, there's every reason to believe that, in 100 years, our standard of living (and our per-capita energy and rsource consumption) will be far higher than it is today.

"Forever. In fact, there's every reason to believe that, in 100 years, our standard of living (and our per-capita energy and resource consumption) will be far higher than it is today."Our energy consumption will probably skyrocket when we can get rid of all the oil, coal, windmills and geothermal water-supplies, and get some (more hardcore) fusion/fision. However, resource consumption? Even though we recycle everything we use, I don't see it skyrocketing until we eat the moon. Why? Lets see. Recycling, population, limited resources, profitability. You do the math.